Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Any thoughts on the debate for second place?


Kilmer17

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Well I do see the polls Jack. The closest anyone get's is Kerry and its about 60-30 with 10 undecided.

Which is closer than anyone I remember getting to Bush I at this point in 1991.

If Dubya tries to do what his dad did - label his opponent as an idiot AND coast until election day - he will lose.

If Dubya does what I suspect he will do, harp on 9/11 - then he will win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean needs to learn how to give a speech without looking down every 2 seconds. Not that I think its a big deal, but politics is as much image as it is substance if not more so. I thought Edwards was impressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Well I do see the polls Jack. The closest anyone get's is Kerry and its about 60-30 with 10 undecided.

If the election were next week the polls would matter my friend, but since it's not they don't!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by codeorama

I wish I could be a candidate... My plan to eliminate the income tax and make Hooter girls mandatory at all restaraunts would give me an edge.

You've got one "write in" vote from me!:cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by codeorama

Cool, I wonder if I'll be included in the debates?:D

May as well be, maybe you could actually make them interesting. The next time they air those, I won't have to worry about taking ambien or tylonol PM. :snore:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Well I do see the polls Jack. The closest anyone get's is Kerry and its about 60-30 with 10 undecided.

Kerry killed himself when he compared our government to Iraqi's regime. The democrats don't care about this election, I feel Duhkakis all over again. (i know i spelled his name wrong) There are no good candidates out there right now. Hillary isn't going to run till 2008, but she will get killed by the Rice and Powell ticket :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JackC

You keep thinking that my friend. Dubya's going down just like his daddy did!

Although I didn't see the debate.

Jack I hate to break it to you. The reason why Bush Sr. got beat was because of Ross Perot, his vote killed Bush. Had Perot not run for president Clinton wouldn't have won. Last I saw there are now major 3rd candidates our there to hurt Bush this year.

Lets stop beating up poor old Bush Sr, and give him some respect. The man was brilliant and held almost every post possible. I just wish Bush Jr was as smart as his dad. Bush Jr is smart since he is surrounded by others that make him smarter though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by The Evil Genius

Which is closer than anyone I remember getting to Bush I at this point in 1991.

If Dubya tries to do what his dad did - label his opponent as an idiot AND coast until election day - he will lose.

If Dubya does what I suspect he will do, harp on 9/11 - then he will win.

You all forget another reason why Bush Sr lost, well Perot was the main reason, but second was his speach "No more new taxes", and then if course there were new taxs. That is what hurt him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jboomba,

If that is the argument, there may be a valid argument that Bush II won do to the popularity of Ralph Nader. Given how close the election was (razor thin in the popular and electoral vote) that 3-5% probably cost Gore the election. Without Nader's influence, the Florida thing may not have happened... he was the liberal protest vote in the same way that Perot was sort of the conservative protest vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burgold,

That is interesting and very possible the case. I just don't see any democrats that are good enough right now to win. I honestly Believe Gore should have tried again, and might be able to win due to what happened in 2000. Honestly it is a wee bit early to talk about elections now, since it is over a year and half away, come January then we can start debating it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perot did not cost Bush 41 the election, anymore than Andersen cost Jimmy Carter the '80 election. Give me a break. Bush 41 raised taxes in the middle of an economic downturn, added 20,000 pages of regulations to the federal registrar, created what was at the time a record budget deficit, increased Social Spending at a higher rate than any other Pres in post-war history, and then sat on his polls for the last half of his term. Most Perot voters would've picked Clinton over Bush, or would've simply stayed home. Bush's approval rating tanked in the months preceding the election, and he didn't help his cause much by going around seeking endorsements from televangelists.

Bush 43 may not be as intellectual as his father, but he has much better political instincts. Better by a mile. Bush 41 was a career bureaucrat (albeit a very accomplished one) who lost every election he'd been in until '88 when he could ride in on Reagan's coat-tails. W won twice in TX (where his father had lost to Bentsen). Now GW Bush is trying to use his popularity to forward his domestic programs, and is campaigning for his agenda in enemy districts, something his waffling father never would've attempted.

Clearly he needs the economy to rebound to win re-election, but he stands a reasonable chance of that happening, since the downturn began at the very beginning of his administration (a la Reagan).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by riggo-toni

Perot did not cost Bush 41 the election, anymore than Andersen cost Jimmy Carter the '80 election. Give me a break.

I said a combination of Perrot and the stupid tax quote cost him the election. However it is very well known that almost 80 to 90 percent of the people who voted for Perrot were republicans, and if they voted for Bush instead it would be quite different. There were many states where Bush and Clinton were seperated by less than 1000 votes. Here is the overall numbers,

William Clinton Democrat 44,909,806 43.01% 370 68.8%

George Bush J. Republican 39,104,550 37.45% 168 31.2%

H. Ross Perot Independent 19,742,240 18.91% 0 0%

As you can see all Bush needed was about 6k votes, and that is only 30% of perrots votes.

If you compare Nader from the 2000, he only had 3 million, so 19 million is a big difference, and don't see how you can not see that hurt Bush in the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...